Ft Worth Enforcing Ammo Ban at Will Rogers

[ScottDLS]

Scott can you please run for office?

I'd vote for him.

I'd also make a campaign donation

I'm not sure I could pass the "background check". I'm sure my vote percentages would be right up there with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

I once heard of an 18 year old high school student being elected to JP in a small Texas county. Or maybe I can be like my talk radio hero, Mark Levin, and run for School Board. I promise to provide written authorization to all LTC holders to carry in LISD schools....

[Soccerdad1995]

Scott can you please run for office?

I'd vote for him.

I'd also make a campaign donation

I'm not sure I could pass the "background check". I'm sure my vote percentages would be right up there with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

I once heard of an 18 year old high school student being elected to JP in a small Texas county. Or maybe I can be like my talk radio hero, Mark Levin, and run for School Board. I promise to provide written authorization to all LTC holders to carry in LISD schools....

My BIL lives in DFW and he is right at home as a staunch Hillary supporter. In other words, I think you need to move somewhere else in Texas first. Just don't go to Houston or Austin....

[jmorris]

I'm doing business in leased space on government property. I ask you to leave the area I'm doing business in, be it a gun show, a restaurant, or a quilting bee, because you've violated a rule I established for entrance[1]. I'm not saying you have to leave the property, just the small part under my control.

I'm not restricting this to the carrying of a firearm but for any reason. Do I not have the right to ask you to leave? As long as I'm not violating a discrimination law.

[1]It's a black-tie quilting bee and you're wearing jeans.

I think you can ask anyone to leave that you want to force out as long as it is not one of those restricted categories assuming your space was otherwise open to the public. What I don't think you can do is have a 30.06/07 sign that is enforceable by law for a person that crosses into your leased property. I think that you could still ask them to leave. If you had a 30.06 sign up and they walked in concealed and you didn't know they were concealed than I don't think they could be class c misdemeanor charged. I think that you can ask anyone you want to leave your leased space though. Consider public housing, owned by the government, you walk into someone's apartment and they ask you to leave. You better leave.

I've been kinda playing devil's advocate here. While I do believe a business owner has the right to set rules for whom he will bake a cake I also think they have to aware of any laws governing where they set up their space. If the AG has said such signs are unenforceable in government space then he needs to abide by such.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....

Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.

[rotor]

I've been kinda playing devil's advocate here. While I do believe a business owner has the right to set rules for whom he will bake a cake I also think they have to aware of any laws governing where they set up their space. If the AG has said such signs are unenforceable in government space then he needs to abide by such.

I agree in general. I don't think that it is illegal to post a 30.06/07 even though it is not enforceable. I guess it is up to those that carry to know that the signs are not enforceable. And I will not bake a cake for you if I don't like you. Fortunately I am retired and don't have to deal with these hassles anymore.

[Jusme]

I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....

Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.

I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO

[rotor]

I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....

Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.

I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO

Why do you think the poster would have civil liability? I would think the entity that arrested or charged the LTC holder would have liability. I don't know why posting a 30.06/07 sign would be illegal unless actually done by the government entity on a place that the legislators have clarified as unenforceable and then the city/government would possibly be fined ( how many $ per day- I doubt any government agencies have paid one cent). The AG has said that businesses that lease government property can post but that they are not enforceable. I personally would not want to be the test case to find out though but I would not hesitate to walk in concealed on a business on leased government property with a 30.06/07 in place as long as I was sure that it was one of those unenforceable signs. How would they know I was carrying?

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....

Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.

I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO

Why do you think the poster would have civil liability? I would think the entity that arrested or charged the LTC holder would have liability. I don't know why posting a 30.06/07 sign would be illegal unless actually done by the government entity on a place that the legislators have clarified as unenforceable and then the city/government would possibly be fined ( how many $ per day- I doubt any government agencies have paid one cent). The AG has said that businesses that lease government property can post but that they are not enforceable. I personally would not want to be the test case to find out though but I would not hesitate to walk in concealed on a business on leased government property with a 30.06/07 in place as long as I was sure that it was one of those unenforceable signs. How would they know I was carrying?

Referencing the text I bolded, I believe the AG has said that these business owners are not violating one very specific law (fines for signs) since that law does not apply to them. I don't know that the AG has opined on whether such business owners "can post" in a more general sense.

I am thinking about a business, say a convenience store, that posts a sign saying "Pursuant to section 85.09 of the Texas criminal code it is a felony (punishable by a maximum of 2 years in prison) to use the public restrooms in this business without purchasing a minimum of $5.00 in merchandise." Or makes some other false statement about the law in order to coerce patrons into complying with the business owners preferences. My question is whether the dispensing of such erroneous legal advice is a crime.

[ScottDLS]

...
I am thinking about a business, say a convenience store, that posts a sign saying "Pursuant to section 85.09 of the Texas criminal code it is a felony (punishable by a maximum of 2 years in prison) to use the public restrooms in this business without purchasing a minimum of $5.00 in merchandise." Or makes some other false statement about the law in order to coerce patrons into complying with the business owners preferences. My question is whether the dispensing of such erroneous legal advice is a crime.

That sign would automatically be notice under 30.05 that you would be committing criminal trespass by failing to purchase at least $5.00 of merchandise. Even if you bought a service (like a carwash) you could still be prosecuted.

This due to the 180 year tradition of Texas holding private property rights in the highest regard....

[Jusme]

I'm thinking about this from another perspective. What are the rules about a non-lawyer dispensing legal advice, and specifically incorrect legal advice? The 30.06 sign posted on government owned, and not statutorily restricted, property clearly states that it is a crime to carry a licensed handgun on these premises.....

Would the answer be different if the business owner / person responsible for posting the sign (and dispensing incorrect legal advice), happened to be licensed to practice law in Texas? Such as a judge.

I don't think there are any legal ramifications for posting a sign stating that a crime would be committed if they were disobeyed, although I agree, there probably should be. Especially if the person posting them, say a layer, judge, or LEO, who "should" know the law. A business owner, who is not in that category, I would give the benefit of the doubt, but as the old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If someone was charged under the statute, or even arrested or detained, and it was shown to be unenforceable, then I would think there would be civil liability, on the poster. JMHO

Why do you think the poster would have civil liability? I would think the entity that arrested or charged the LTC holder would have liability. I don't know why posting a 30.06/07 sign would be illegal unless actually done by the government entity on a place that the legislators have clarified as unenforceable and then the city/government would possibly be fined ( how many $ per day- I doubt any government agencies have paid one cent). The AG has said that businesses that lease government property can post but that they are not enforceable. I personally would not want to be the test case to find out though but I would not hesitate to walk in concealed on a business on leased government property with a 30.06/07 in place as long as I was sure that it was one of those unenforceable signs. How would they know I was carrying?

My bad, I meant to post "should" instead of would. It is only my opinion, and I doubt that one would be able to successfully win a lawsuit.

[rm9792]

What is new here?? I haven't been to a gun show in the last ten years where they didn't require you to present your unloaded gun to them, they zip tied it and then they asked if you had ammo on you.

Pasadena doesn't stop ltc anymore, they just have 30.07 now. Which is equally senseless.